The judicial system has now refused a jury trial to detained Venezuelan Justice Maria Lourdes Afiuni . Legally, Justice Afiuni has a right to be tried by a jury; however, the government has claimed this to be administratively impossible. Justice Afiuni's legal team then elected a "mixed trial", which means that the two laypersons are included as finders of fact. While this system is a far cry from an actual jury trial, it does mean that someone other than a state employee will decide on guilt or innocence.

On Wednesday, July 28th, Judge Ali Paredes decided that Justice Afiuni's trial will take place on August 10th, 2010, and it will be a "judge alone" trial, despite the fact that the law supposedly insures that she be able to elect the mode of her trial.

Justice Afiuni is in jail because she granted bail to a political prisoner, contrary to the desires of President Hugo Chavez. Even though the Venezuelan Constitition mandated release, Justice Afiuni was arrested within the hour and pulled down from the bench by security police.

Since the charges--"aiding an escape" and "corruption" allow a possible sentence of life imprisonment, the right to a jury trial is guaranteed by the COPP, or Criminal Procedure Statute, Article 62. http://www.analitica.com/bitblio/congreso_venezuela/penal.asp

On May 17th, the regime in Venezuela finally got Justice Afiuni into court for her much-delayed preliminary hearing. (For those who need a summary of the case before May, please check the post for March 29th, below).

The government lawyers immediately announced that there was no evidence of any payment made, or promise of payment to Justice Afiuni by anyone.

It was the general opinion among lawyers that this concession meant that Justice Afiuni would have to be freed, since without payments or promises of payment, where's the corruption?

But these lawyers were reckoning without the assigned judge, who has been assigned to many of the "political" cases, and who has no permanent position as a judge--she serves at the discretion of the President.

That judge, Leyvis Azuaje, held that the very fact that a prisoner was released by Justice Afiuni could well be a benefit to Judge Afiuni! So, she was committed to trial on all charges.

One informed observer, Ligia Bolívar, the director of the Centre for Human Rights of the Catholic University Andrés Bello said the decision showed that Venezuela is no longer functioning as a society of laws.

http://eluniversal.com/2010/05/19/pol_ava_venezuela-se-coloca_19A3892379.shtml

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of the Judiciary also supported Justice Afiuni, stating in her report of June 3, 2010 that:

"Particular attention must go to grave violations of human rights. The Special Rapporteur expressed her grave concern about the case of Judge Maria Lourdes Afiuni and said she was awaiting the response of the Venezuelan Government. "

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/judiciary/docs/A.HRC.14.26.pdf

Chavez Stenographers

President Chavez of Venezuela has reverted to repression---as in the Afiuni case described below---and has lost support worldwide as a result. Inside Venezuela, he's polling in the low thirties, even with his weekly seven-hour tv show on every channel, and effective control of the national budget for self-aggrandizement and buying clients beholden to his state-provided largesse.

This leaves "solidarity" sites with a dilemma. Do they double down and pretend, or do they make a timid criticism now and again?

James Suggett's article in the main solidarity organ in English, "Venezuelanalysis" follows a well-worn path of faithful stenography for the Venezuelan state and its leadership.

First, Suggett claims that the real problem in the Afiuni case is the "international media" which are criticizing Venezuela rather than minding their own business.

While blaming the international messenger will sometimes work with the dullwitted, it is useless in the Afiuni case. The day after Justice Afiuni was pulled down from the bench and tossed in jail, her cause was taken up by the Caracas Bar Association as well as several UN human rights experts. Several days later, the Latin American Judges' Association issued a statement decrying the treatment of her. Venezuelan newspapers also deplored what occurred.

What the Suggetts of the world desire is that the cries of those being repressed in Venezuela are not heard outside. That is because for Suggett et al., there can be only ONE voice coming from Venezuela, and that voice belongs to Chavez. This is Chavez' actual belief, expressed in his speech of January 23rd, 2010, available on youtube under the heading "I am the People!". It is mimicked by his sycophants. When any voice not approved by the Leader is reported by the international media, it's a conspiracy.

-----------------

Suggett's defence of his Leader's jailing of Justice Afiuni follows the furrow plowed by Chavez the day after her arrest, when, (already!) he called her a bandit and demanded thirty years jail, while talking darkly of firing squads in "Bolivaran times".

Vague allegations of "corruption" and " conspiracy" were standards of Stalin's justice, and Suggett doesn't disappoint. He tells us about a banker, one Cedeno, who was brought into Justice Afiuni's court. He thinks that squirting out the words "fraud" and "banker" will convince most readers that there must be some guilt there.

And, there may be! But Cedeno was in Venezuelan custody 32 months without a trial. He is presumed innocent. The Venezuelan Constitution mandates that pretrial detention can be for twenty-four months maximum, at which point EVERY ACCUSED PERSON has a right to bail.

So Justice Afiuni granted Cedeno bail. What legal alternative existed? What would an honest judge do? If there were a legal argument in favour of continued detention, shouldn't the prosecution have come into court and made it?

-----------------------

The article then says " there was evidence that Afiuni had conspired to help Cedeño avoid facing the charges amidst the escalating fraud scandal in which he was implicated."

Not just fraud! Escalating fraud! And not "of which he was accused!" No, he is "implicated".

And Justice Afiuni "conspired"!

The source for this information is ""private conversation" with an official of the Red de Apoyo, a solidarity network.

So, here's how Suggett works. He writes what he's told by people who themselves would have no reason to know. He passes their conclusions on to the solidarity network, making no attempt to find out if any evidence really exists.

In a country which respects civil liberties, if the Prosecutor charges someone with a crime, the person gets a TRIAL. If there is evidence, it is presented at the trial. And people with no criminal record should generally get bail, so that punishment doesn't precede proof.

Well then, why not PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE? The Venezuelan Code of Penal Procedure requires a preliminary hearing within 60 days of formal arraignment. That arraignment happened for Judge Afiuni in early January, but no preliminary hearing has occurred.

Three excuses have been given by the prosecution so far: "there is no transportation" to bring Justice Afiuni to court, or "the court information (la causa) has been misplaced", or "the hearing judge is indisposed".

So, Justice Afiuni has been in custody for five months without a preliminary hearing, guaranteed by law, after setting one three times. She was entitled to a hearing by Mid-March at the latest. The New York Times and the Washington Post are on the case, and "there is no transportation available" to bring the accused to court.

Our solidarity reporter/stenographer doesn't mention any of this; he'd rather rely on "private conversation" . And he'll tell us all about the Penal Code when he's describing the allegations, but won't mention violation of those sections which protect civil rights.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Suggett channels the official story once again, claiming: "More importantly, she (released the prisoner Cedeno) in an unannounced hearing without notifying the prosecution from the Attorney General’s office, in violation of the penal procedural code."

Suggett hasn't a clue about the justice system in Venezuela if he believes this. HOW DID THE PRISONER GET INTO HER COURT FROM JAIL? DO YOU THINK MAYBE THE PRISON OFFICIALS AND THE TRANSPORT STAFF AND THE COURT OFFICERS HAD A ROLE IN BRINGING HIM THERE? DO YOU THINK NO ONE GETS INTO THE COURT CELLS, BELOW COURT, WITHOUT BEING PROCESSED IN, OR THAT THE PROSECUTION DOESN'T GET THESE LISTS?

The idea that one of the most famous prisoners in Venezuela got taken from jail to court, and then into Justice Afiuni's own courtroom, and it was all a big secret to the prosecution, is ludicrous.

And lo and behold! The prosecution was making a practice of failing to appear at Cedeno's trial for YEARS before he came into Afiuni's court. Reuters reported, in March 2009:

"Cedeno's trial was set to take place on March 12, but was again postponed by

Judge Gabriela Salazar of Court 23 in Venezuela after prosecutors from the

General District Attorney's Office of Venezuela were absent for the trial. This marks the fourth time no prosecutor appeared and the fourth time no advance notice or explanation for the absences was provided by Venezuelan prosecutors." http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS148609+19-Mar-2008+PRN20080319

The real claim of the Chavez government is this: prosecutors can ignore a judge's order to attend a hearing, No matter what rights are being violated, unless the Prosecutor deigns to attend, nothing can happen to the prisoner except continued detention without trial.

No one who believes in civil liberties could possibly accept this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suggett's blindness to any possible human rights issue leads him to crtiticize New York Times reporter Romero:

"Romero asserted that Judge Afiuni and Eligio Cedeño were political prisoners. This is clearly inaccurate, especially since no evidence was presented that they were politically active."

Could there be a more impoverished, wilfully blind idea of who is a political prisoner? As a matter of international human rights law, for one thing, it doesn't depend upon whether the prisoner was politically active; it depends on how the authorities treat him or her.

If the authorities don't want an independent judiciary, they will arrest independent judges. It is the authorities wshose motivation is political. A judge to whom this happens, like Justice Afiuni, is being politically persecuted.Can Suggitt really be so blind as not to know this?

-----

It's too bad that the Venezuelan Revolution, after some useful reforms, has turned down the usual path towards one party, one person dictatorship. Believers like Suggett may eventually recognize their mistake and move on; their victims are those, like Justice Afiuni, who sit in a dank cell while Suggett writes his apologetics.

President Chavez

Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez is trying mightily to destroy the independence of the judiciary in Venezuela.

On December 11, Justice Maria Afiuni was pulled down from the bench and thrown into custody by intelligence police.

She had had the temerity to release a person on bail, a person who the Chavez government had charged with fraud, but had never provided proof, after 34 months in pretrial custody.

Under the Venezuelan Constitution, 24 months is the maximum for pretrial custody, and the lawyers for the prisoner argued for his release.

The prosecutor, despite being advised and ordered to appear, failed to do so, indicating that he was "too busy."
In the absence of any showing why the detention was justified, she released the accused on bail.

She was arrested within the hour, and sent to prison. Just as bad, before her bail hearing, President Chavez called Justice Afiuni a "bandit" on national television, and called for 30 years in custody in her case. He also said that "in Bolivarian times" she would have been summarily executed.

Also on television, the lead prosecutor stated that there was no evidence of any bribe being paid, nor of any contact between the judge and the accused outside of the court. The crime, she explained, was having contact IN court,in the absence of the prosecutor. According to this theory, by the simple expedient of refusing to enter the courtroom, the Prosecution could keep someone in custody indefinitely.

No doubt as a result, bail was denied her despite the presumption that a person of previous good character is entitled to liberty pending trial.
The Caracas Bar Association pointed out that no judge will be willing to release anyone, if they themselves then face arrest. They also pointed out the obvious, that if the prosecution disagrees with a judicial decision, they must appeal it, not arrest the judge. The path being followed by the Chavez government destroys the independence of the judiciary, they said.
Justice Afiuni returns to court February 18th. In theory, she could be released. But it would take a brave judge, or prosecutor, to rub egg in the face of President Chavez by releasing her pending trial.

UPDATE: On February 18th, and again through the first half of March, Judge Afiuni remains in custody. No evidence against her has yet been produced.

Her preliminary hearing date was March 6th. On that day, a court would have jurisdiction to release her on bail, if so persuaded. However, the assigned judge dodged the task, sending out word that he was "indisposed". Because, according to Venezuelan law a preliminary hearing "must take place within sixty days of a charge being laid", a second preliminary date was scheduled for March 18th. Once again, no hearing was held, and no proof presented. This time, it was because the formal charging document, the "causa", was not in the court file for some inexplicable reason.

FURTHER UPDATE:

On April 19, a further preliminary date had been set. This time, Justice Afiuni was not brought to court because "there was no transport available". So, once again, no evidence was presented against her. That makes four times she has been denied her trial rights. The next court date is May 3rd. On April 25th, the Washington Post had a story about the case:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/24/AR2010042401791.html?hpid=topnews